Darkthorn’s Blog

A Discussion of Trait Theories, and their Applications

Different aspects of the individual are often explained by different personality theorists. Different personality theories occur by four main categories, namely the theorist’s approach and philosophical assumptions and also common pitfalls and misunderstandings (Boeree, 2006).  This essay explores the approaches of three schools of psychology, Biological/Trait, Behavioural/Cognitive and Psychodynamic, towards the individual in the above case study (Macris, 2007). In particular, Costa and McCrae’s Big Five, Horney’s interpersonal orientations and Bandura’s levels of self-efficacy are investigated.

Differences between Personality Theories

According to Boeree (2006), there are four main categories of differences between personality theories – approach, pitfalls, misunderstandings and philosophical assumptions.

Approach

There are many schools of thought within the broad heading of Personality Theorists. There are the Humanists who focus on understanding different personalities, and believe that due to historical and cultural influences it is impossible to predict and control human behaviour (Boeree, 2006). Behaviourists and Freudians are more interesting in affecting behaviour, rather than understanding why the individual is acting in a particular way (Boeree, 2006).

Although Freudians differ in their approaches, they all agree that personality lies underneath the surface in the sub-conscious (Boeree, 2006). On the other hand, Behaviourists feel, as the title suggests, that personality can be observed in the interactions between behaviour and environment (Boeree, 2006). This school of psychology tends to rely on quantitative experimental methods (Boeree, 2006). The third approach to personality is the humanists, who can be divided into two categories: Humanistic proper and the Existentialists (Boeree, 2006). For these two groups, answers can be found in consciousness and experience (Boeree, 2006).

Pitfalls

The pervasive influence of society (ethnocentrism) is the first pitfall mentioned by Boeree (2006). The peculiarities of the theorist’s culture, such as the time and place, have a huge impact on the basis of the theory (Boeree, 2006). Take Freud for example. Freud was able to rise above his culture in order to provide a more accurate overview of sex, yet was mislead to believe that all neurosis is due to sexual dysfunction (Boeree, 2006).

The next pitfall described by Boeree (2006) is the individual influence of a theorist’s upbringing (egocentrism). This can be related to the individual differences studied by some theories. Every person is slightly different to begin with by virtue of their genetics and additional life experiences only widen the gap.

Many theorists also fall into the trap of dogmatism. These people do not allow for new information, doubts or questions, preferring to stick to what has worked previously (Boeree, 2006).

Misunderstandings

Misunderstandings of the actual basis of the theory can occur during translation (for example Freud’s id, ego and superego being translated from German) and due to the use of neologisms (new words) and metaphors (phrases that capture a limited aspect of the truth).

Philosophical Assumptions

Boeree (2006) also mentions that the philosophical assumptions made by theorists impact on their lines of questioning. These include the question of free will verses determinism, the existence of universal laws, our motivations, whether personality depends on our upbringing or genetic factors, the stages of development of personality, the extent to which culture moulds personality, the understanding of the nature of mental illness and optimism verses pessimism (Boeree, 2006; Macris, 2007).

Costa and McCrae’s Big Five

Trait theory hypothesises that all individuals have the same basic traits, which appear in varying levels (Macris, 2007). Costa and McCrae (1985, as cited in Macris, 2007) categorise personality traits into five factors (often refered to as the Big Five) which consist of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. Each of these factors can further be divided into 6 subscales (Macris, 2007; Costa & McCrae, 1992).

The facets of agreeableness are trust, straightforwardness, modesty, compliance, altruism and tender-mindedness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). In the given scenario Mary would have an average score overall for agreeableness. As characteristic of people low in tender-mindedness, Mary feels little empathy with others, being “short and abrupt to the public”. However, Mary is still compliant, completing this part of her duties without complaining. Mary is also modest, not expecting any recognition for her overtime or her good work. It is difficult to determine Mary’s altruism, straightforwardness or trust levels from the given case study.

Across all of the six facets (warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, positive emotions) Mary displays a low level of extroversion (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Mary appears to be very self-absorbed, ‘keeping to herself’ and is quiet around strangers “short and abrupt to the public”. While working in the catalogue section, Mary is able to have plenty of time to herself, and appears most comfortable when not in contact with others. Other traits which could be expected in Mary would be not talking a lot in general and not wanting to draw attention to herself (“Big Five personality traits”, 2008).

Mary would score highly on the conscientiousness trait, showing aspects of competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline and deliberation (Costa and McCrae, 1992). Mary has a very “strict routine” and “gets easily upset if the routine is changed”. She achieves high levels of success though planning and persistence, illustrated by her being “very good at her work… and often [spending] unpaid overtime” at her workplace.  Mary “finds change difficult”, an expression of her desire for order.

Mary does not display significant levels of depression, impulsiveness or hostility, but would still score highly in neuroticism due to her anxiety, self-consciousness and vulnerability (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Mary is not emotionally stable, as she has “gone on stress leave even before the new work procedures have been implemented”. She becomes “easily upset”, another attribute of a neurotic person.

It is difficult to discern whether Mary would score highly on the openness trait from the limited case study given, as the case study only describes her actions, not her feelings or values. However, Mary has a ‘strict routine’ which would probably indicate a low openness, consequentially she would not be interested in abstract ideas or have a good imagination.

Bandura’s Self-Efficacy

Initially, Bandura developed a theory of social learning – that humans can perform behaviours, such as language, without every correct response being rewarded (Macris, 2007). Eventually Bandura concluded that behaviour is a product of both external and internal factors, beliefs, thoughts and expectations and named this theory social cognitive, from which he then derived his theory of self-efficacy (Frager & Fadiman, 2006).

Self-efficacy can be defined as “the belief in one’s capabilities to organise and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (Bandura, 1995, p. 2, Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies). Simply said, self efficacy is the self-judgement of whether a person can complete particular actions (Engler, 1999). People’s belief in themselves (self-efficacy) is developed by four main influences: success/failure, social exposure, social persuasion and emotional state (Bandura, 1994). The degree of self-efficacy depends on the situation it is being applied in (Macris, 2008). It is important that both self efficacy and skill levels are high to be able to do something well (Engler, 1999).

Technically, self-efficacy is not a trait as it is not what you have but what you do (Macris, 2007). Also, a trait usually is broad and applies to all aspects of a person’s life – self-efficacy changes across different situations (Macris, 2007). Self-efficacy beliefs may also change over time, due to environmental factors such as social conditions and life events (Engler, 1999). This particularly applies in Mary’s situation.

Mary is very comfortable in her old work, displaying high self-efficacy as she is very persistent and puts a great deal of effort into it. However, Mary seems uncertain of her abilities to adapt to the new procedures, and so does not want to try at them at all, indicating a newly formed low level of self efficacy. Mary’s routine has been interrupted, and this make her very anxious, further impacting on her ability to adapt.

Mary has low self-efficacy in dealing with people, indicated by her feeling dislike when manning the front desk. This low self efficacy may extend to the rest of her life, making it difficult for her to relate to others. As will be discussed later, Bandura’s self-efficacy builders could assist Mary in adjusting to her new role.

Horney’s Interpersonal Orientations

Horney was a post-Freudian psychologist who stressed the social (and more positive) needs of the EGO, rather that the antisocial needs of the ID (Macris, 2008). Horney suggested that at the root of every neurotic problem there is basic anxiety, the feeling of being helpless in an unfriendly world (Engler, 1999). The type of neuroticism depends on the coping strategies employed to deal with this feeling. She defined ten needs which were grouped into three broad coping strategies: compliance, aggression and withdrawal (Boeree, 2006). For Horney there are three distinct categories of neuroticism: ‘move towards’, ‘move against’ and ‘move away’ (Paris, 2005).

Horney describes three defence solutions, compliant/self-effacing (moving toward), aggressive/expansive (moving against) and detached/resigned (moving away) (Paris, 2005). Healthy people are able to use all three of these strategies to cope with everyday changes (Paris, 2005; Engler 1999). Neurotics are inflexible, and tend to use only one of these coping strategies, at the expense of the other two (Engler,1999). They unconsciously repress the other orientations, emphasising only one mode, creating more anxiety as the other needs struggle to be expressed (Engler, 1999).

Mary could be categorised as using the withdrawal coping strategy or ‘move away’ orientation. Mary displays a neurotic need to restrict her life into narrow borders and be undemanding, inconspicuous and satisfied with little (Boeree, 2006; Engler, 1999). She also has a need for perfection and unassailability, driven to produce flawlessness – she spends unpaid overtime “getting things right” (Boeree, 2006; Engler, 1999). Her third neurotic need is that of self-sufficiency and independence (Boeree, 2006, Engler, 1999). In order to cope with these needs, Mary has adopted the ‘move away’ strategy (Engler, 1999). She is very withdrawn, disliking social contact (the three hours a week working on the front desk) (Macris, 2008).

Coping Strategies for Mary

The Big Five domains are personality traits, which theoretically can not be changed. Their use in assisting Mary would be to determine which of the other theories’ therapies would best suit her needs. As Mary has a low score of extroversion, she would be unlikely to benefit from group therapy, instead a one-on-one situation would be the most helpful (Engler, 1999).

In this situation, it may be beneficial for Mary to follow some of Bandura’s self-efficacy builders. Mary could first watch instruction videos to see others like herself succeeding at the new tasks (Macris, 2007). This would serve the double role of increasing Mary’s self-efficacy and instructing her in the new work procedures (as she may have missed the instruction day due to her stress leave) (Macris, 2007). She could set a small performance goal to spend a little time each day at work adjusting to the new procedures instead of just beginning full-time work straight after her stress leave (Macris, 2007). This would ensure her success and Mary would feel more at ease with her new role. The final step in assisting Mary to adjust to her changed workplace would be verbal reassurance from her new employers about how well she is dealing with customers compared to her original treatment of them (Macris, 2007).

Horney’s assessment of personality types depends predominantly on the techniques of free association and dream analysis (Engler, 1999). Self-analysis, as explored by Horney (1942), assists normal personality development. Most people engage in self-analysis while trying to understand the motives behind their behaviour, but this is not what Horney primarily meant (Engler, 1999). Horney suggested that systematic self-analysis, although difficult and time-consuming, would assist an individual in constructively changing their neurotic tendancies (Engler, 1999). This would be unlikely to help Mary in the short term, as it would take many months of focussed work to expose the underlying issues behind her reluctance to change.

Conclusion

In this situation, Mary

References

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman  (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).

Bandura, A. (Ed.) (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman

Bandura, A. (2000), Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behaviour (pp 120-136). Blackwell Business.

Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory: NEO PI and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychology Assessment Resources.

Engler, B. (1999). Personality Theories: An Introduction (5^th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Frager, R. & Fadiman, J. (2005). Personality and Personal Growth (6^th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Horney, K. (1942). Self-Analysis. New York: Norton.

Horney, K. (1945). Our inner conflicts. Oxford, UK: Norton & Co.

Macris, P. (2008). PSY1011 Personality Lecture 1: Overview.

McAdams, D. P. (2006). The Person: A New Introduction to Personality Psychology (4th ed.). USA: John Wiley & Sons.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509-516.

Pajares (2002). Overview of Social Cognitive Theory and of Self-Efficacy. Retrieved March 17^th 2008, from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfpleff.htm

Paris, B. J. (2005). Karen Horney and Humanistic Psychoanalysis. In R. Frager, & J. Fadiman (Eds.), Personality and Personal Growth (6^th ed., pp. 114-140). New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Big Five personality traits. (6 May 2008). Retrieved May 13, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits